add_interface_event_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by warning the agent to verify interface implementation before relying on runtime dispatch and to compile/read back the graph afterward. However, it does not state whether the tool saves/mutates the asset, whether missing interface implementation causes failure, or what side effects beyond node insertion occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short justification for the pattern, a verification note, parameter semantics, a KB pointer, and a realistic example. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant boilerplate is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter Blueprint graph mutation tool, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly: clear action, parameter meanings, optionality, workflow guidance, and an example. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. It could be more complete by stating behavior when the target Blueprint does not implement the interface, but the verification caveat partially covers that risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides only parameter names and basic types, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: blueprint_name is the Blueprint receiving the node, interface_name is the asset name or path, function_name is the interface function to implement, and node_position is an optional [X, Y] graph position. The concrete example further clarifies expected values and path formatting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a specific action and resource: 'Add an event override node for a Blueprint Interface function.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_interface_function_node and add_call_interface_function_node by narrowing it to the event override variant. It is not a tautology and names the exact graph operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives useful usage context, explaining that interface events are appropriate for interactables, pickups, objectives, and vertical-slice workflows with shared behavior contracts. It also gives a practical verification instruction: confirm the Blueprint implements the interface and compile/read back afterward. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.